JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Petitioner-landlord aggrieved by an order passed by the prescribed authority dated 17.8.2001, whereby an application Paper No. 118Ka filed by the respondent for cross-examination of the witnesses, was allowed has approached this Court by means of this writ petition.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order allowing cross-examination is an order without any reason and in view of the law laid down by this Court in Smt. Gulaicha Devi v. Prescribed Authority (Munsif) Basti and Anr. 1989 (1) ARC 407, also, this order is erroneous. This Court after considering the several authorities in this regard has held as under :
14. The consistent view of this Court, consequently, is that the normal mode of proceeding in a case under the Act is to receive evidence on affidavits from both the parties and to decide the case on the basis of the said affidavits. It is only in a very rare case where the Court thinks fit necessary in the interest of justice cross-examine a particular deponent of an affidavit, but it has to be very sparingly exercised in very exceptional circumstances, if such a power is exercised, specific reasons for exercise of the powers have to be given by the authority concerned. The cross-examination cannot be ordered as a matter of course.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no exceptional circumstance, as has been held by this Court in the case of Gulaicha Devi (supra), has been pointed out in the order allowing the application for cross-examination of the witnesses. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner has force. Learned Counsel for the respondent argued that in the objection which is paper No. 119Ga filed by the petitioner, it has been categorically stated that in case the authority thinks that the cross-examination is necessary, may be allowed therefore, the order of the prescribed authority does not suffer from any error. Even assuming that there is a statement on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioner to the effect that if the authority thinks that the cross-examination is necessary may be allowed, nonetheless there being no recital of any exceptional circumstance in the impugned order, which is a condition precedent for allowing the application for cross-examination, as has been held by this Court in the case of Gulaicha Devi (supra), the argument advanced by learned Counsel of the respondent is not tenable.
4. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned order dated 17.8.2001 deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Since the matter is fairly old, the prescribed authority is directed to decide it within six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.